I would agree, until I went to the page (www.apps.gov). They are actually selling applications (for example, a text editor for $75.19). Most of what they have now seem to be salesforce apps, but the best that I saw (in limited shopping) was the 500 MB of storage for $1,436.37 (judging by other items on the list, I am assuming that they actually meant 500GB, but, hey, you never know).
I work for the FAA. We can't even (officially) get a browser more modern than IE6 unless you are a web developer. How about we update to only a couple of years behind, or even to modern times, before we try for the "future" crap?
The/. summary did not use the word "unacceptable" at all, much less in quotes.
Summary:
"Professional digital photographer and website publisher Rob Galbraith has performed both objective and subjective tests on laptop displays, finding that the late-2008 Macbook Pro glossy displays are 'deep into the not acceptable category' when used in ambient light environments."
TFA (page 2):
"In ambient light environments which induce screen reflections, the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch's glossy screen moves deep into the not acceptable category."
While the summary may still be considered flamebait, it quotes TFA accurately and does not qualify as being a "baldface lie".
If given enough space Windows will display the date and time and day of the week. I use a sidebar style start menu...
Um... if you are joking, I apologize, but did you not notice that the TFA was about problems with the OSX interface, not problems with the Windows interface?
I think (not sure) that the fifth posulate of Euclid is a good example. It involves the angles when a line crosses two parallel lines. For centuries, people tried to prove the fifth posulate in terms of the other four. It is possible to assume something completely contrary to the usual fifth postulate, though, and come up with a perfectly fine mathematical system. In the logical system with only the first four postulates, the fifth postulate constitutes a statement that cannot be proven or disproven even though the terms come from the first four.
Your explanation of what Godel's Theorem actually means is accurate, however your example is faulty. The postulates of Euclid are just those, postulates, not theorems. None of them are provable, they are assumed to be true or taken as 'obvious'. The parallel line postulate is not obvious, so people have thrown it out and worked just fine from there. If you assume it's true, you get Euclidean (planar) Geometry. If you don't, you get other interesting results (including spherical geometry).
I guess what I am trying to say is that the postulates were never meant to be proven, so they are not a good example of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
In the book, it is very clear that the androids can not take part in Mercerism. In fact, they tried as hard as they could to tear down the whole Mercerism concept (through the media and the like). However, Deckard uses the box multiple times in the book, even sustaining the injuries that people were able to experience as a way of bonding and having 'empathy', which the androids were not capable of. Personally, I have always taken this as pretty clear evidence that Deckard was not an android.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree, until I went to the page (www.apps.gov). They are actually selling applications (for example, a text editor for $75.19). Most of what they have now seem to be salesforce apps, but the best that I saw (in limited shopping) was the 500 MB of storage for $1,436.37 (judging by other items on the list, I am assuming that they actually meant 500GB, but, hey, you never know).
I work for the FAA. We can't even (officially) get a browser more modern than IE6 unless you are a web developer. How about we update to only a couple of years behind, or even to modern times, before we try for the "future" crap?
Or, you could skip all of that and use the static BigInteger.valueOf(long val) method that returns a brand new BigInteger without all of the hassle.
Is it necessary to defend the united states? No?
Apparently yes:
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/
The /. summary did not use the word "unacceptable" at all, much less in quotes.
Summary:
"Professional digital photographer and website publisher Rob Galbraith has performed both objective and subjective tests on laptop displays, finding that the late-2008 Macbook Pro glossy displays are 'deep into the not acceptable category' when used in ambient light environments."
TFA (page 2):
"In ambient light environments which induce screen reflections, the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch's glossy screen moves deep into the not acceptable category."
While the summary may still be considered flamebait, it quotes TFA accurately and does not qualify as being a "baldface lie".
Um... if you are joking, I apologize, but did you not notice that the TFA was about problems with the OSX interface, not problems with the Windows interface?
I think (not sure) that the fifth posulate of Euclid is a good example. It involves the angles when a line crosses two parallel lines. For centuries, people tried to prove the fifth posulate in terms of the other four. It is possible to assume something completely contrary to the usual fifth postulate, though, and come up with a perfectly fine mathematical system. In the logical system with only the first four postulates, the fifth postulate constitutes a statement that cannot be proven or disproven even though the terms come from the first four.
Your explanation of what Godel's Theorem actually means is accurate, however your example is faulty. The postulates of Euclid are just those, postulates, not theorems. None of them are provable, they are assumed to be true or taken as 'obvious'. The parallel line postulate is not obvious, so people have thrown it out and worked just fine from there. If you assume it's true, you get Euclidean (planar) Geometry. If you don't, you get other interesting results (including spherical geometry).
I guess what I am trying to say is that the postulates were never meant to be proven, so they are not a good example of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Just trying to clarify a little.
Maybe we can sue the manufacturers of the monitors and the silicon implants.
In the book, it is very clear that the androids can not take part in Mercerism. In fact, they tried as hard as they could to tear down the whole Mercerism concept (through the media and the like). However, Deckard uses the box multiple times in the book, even sustaining the injuries that people were able to experience as a way of bonding and having 'empathy', which the androids were not capable of. Personally, I have always taken this as pretty clear evidence that Deckard was not an android.
The code is so bad that they can't read it, so it's insecurity through obscurity?